Agnostic Spectrum of Probabilities - The God Delusion

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins has a section called "The Poverty of Agnosticism" which obviously criticizes agnosticism. He's a renowned author for disbelief and the book is great except for that section. Most of the section is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of agnosticism with its focus on God.

Dawkins asks "How about the question of God? Should we be agnostic about him too?" The words "God" and "him" tells me he's talking about the very specific Abrahamic God. That God is unbelievable and unproven when you apply the scientific method advocated by agnosticism. If an agnostic believes in that God then they should rightfully identify as whichever flavor of theism matches their belief and primary concern for the subject. The question of that specific God is the wrong question concerning agnosticism.

Dawkins continues with some unnecessary nonsense about Temporary Agnosticism in Practice and Permanent Agnosticism in Principle. A thought process naturally lacks permanence so I don't see how agnosticism could exist in a permanent state. All thoughts are open to modification and it can be done on a whim. Fortunately he moves on to summarize T. H. Huxley's coining of the term agnostic. He uses this quote from Huxley:

They were quite sure that they had attained a certain 'gnosis'--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion... So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic'.

This next quote is cut down in the book so I'm showing the whole thing:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

Dawkins misses the point again when he responds to these quotes with:

But Huxley, in his concentration upon the absolute impossibility of proving or disproving God, seems to be ignoring the shading of probability. The fact that we can neither prove or disprove the existence of something does not put existence and non-existence on an even footing.

Once again Dawkins invokes the Abrahamic God not addressed in Huxley's remarks. Huxley speaks of the 'problem of existence' and not knowing what 'may be beyond phenomena' which is bigger than the singular supernatural being named God. Huxley's agnosticism is conceptually bigger than Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Native American beliefs, or any other first origin belief with more than one god or no specific god. Huxley's stance on agnosticism is best described in this quote:

I have no doubt that scientific criticism will prove destructive to the forms of supernaturalism which enter into the constitution of existing religions. On trial of any so-called miracle the verdict of science is "Not proven." But true Agnosticism will not forget that existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy." The theological "gnosis" would have us believe that the world is a conjuror's house; the anti-theological "gnosis" talks as if it were a "dirt-pie" made by the two blind children, Law and Force. Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.

Dawkins concocts a spectrum of probabilities regarding the existence of God with seven milestones. I'll present this exactly as written in the book since other websites drop words and rephrase it to meet their needs:

I've seen misquotes of this to say agnosticism only exists in the middle at milestone four when it's also clearly mentioned in three and five. Agnosticism doesn't fit on his scale as a singular 50-50 spot or fence-sitter between theism and atheism. The major problem with this scale continues to be the presence of the singular God instead of the possibility or probability of an unknown first cause we many never understand. It's funny Dawkins claimed Huxley didn't consider the probabilities when it's really Dawkins who was too focused on a very limited possibility for the origin of the Universe. His scale doesn't adequately address the full spectrum of probabilities for the full spectrum of possible first causes.

There's other popular charts like the one below showing two axis for belief and knowledge. I think this is fairly accurate. It's hard for someone to be completely undecided and sit on the middle point of these two scales at the same time. If you don't have belief then you have a de facto disbelief. If you don't think we have knowledge about a first cause of the universe then you have a de facto view that we lack knowledge. One way or the other you're easily tipped off the middle point ever so slightly.

Let's take the Dawkins Scale and try to reconcile it with the two axis scale above. I've come up with this variation showing the Dawkins Scale on top and a typical two axis scale roughly adapted to it.

The one thing it doesn't do well is show someone like me with an overall strong agnosticism and weaker atheism. I guess I'm around the five and six range on the bottom scale in the overall sense. Dawkins would call me "De Facto Atheist" for picking the six, which is still compatible with agnosticism by not claiming knowledge or certainty about a lack of God. I care much more about the application of agnosticism so I'd prefer the Agnostic & Leaning Atheist label if I pick one on the bottom line based on the words I've picked for it.

Keep in mind that I'm picking an overall number on the probability line. I'm a seven regarding mythological gods like Zeus and Ra. I'm still close to that seven for the Abrahamic God or Hinduism. I'm probably a six for something more vague like pantheism or maybe even deism. I'm a five if we're talking about a first cause of the Universe beyond our comprehension or identification of what it really is (or was) as a being or human-like intellect. I might be right at the four for the probability concerning the vaguest questions about the first cause of the Universe being natural or unnatural.

This whole exercise in beliefs, knowledge, and probabilities really depends on the exact question being asked. We pick our own labels in the end, but this should help inform our choices based on the common definitions of these words and what is really meant by the term agnosticism.